Discussion is that 9/11 was a nuclear event
December 22, 2012 1:27 pm
December 22, 2012 3:26 pm
Maxwell Bridges
Discussion is that 9/11 was a nuclear event
December 22, 2012 1:27 pm
December 22, 2012 3:26 pm
Due
to the unethical and immoral actions of others having nothing to do
with the discussion, this article about nuclear means on 9/11 is being
RESTARTED.
++++++++++
The premise of this discussion is that 9/11 was a nuclear event that involved per WTC tower multiple neutron DEW devices. Everything about 9/11 including the lock-stepping of those in the on-going cover-up. Think about it: wiffs of nuclear-anything on 9/11 vastly reduces the list of possible suspects and would have figurative nuclear fall-out in all aspects and levels of what constitutes the status quo in the USA. We'd vote our government out, and maybe the USA into separate regions. But I digress.
Allow me to give my discussion opponents an advantage by saying the totality (so far) of my nuclear argument is contained in my article, "Nuclear 2001-09-11" at:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html
But for those too lazy to follow the link, I'll use this Facebook posting to summarize it. The first order of business is to describe the nuclear devices properly. I call them "neutron nuclear DEW", whereby some of the arguments and much of the evidence of Dr. Judy Wood apply. A paradigm shift is required to understand it.
++++++++ begin inserted text
From decades of PR and hype of nuclear weapons, the common paradigm suggests that such always aim for high yields, lots of destruction, and lots of casualties. When "DEW" (directed energy weapon) is appended to the description, the assumption is that energy is being aimed at a target to achieve destruction and casualties. (Laser beams and active denial systems do precisely this.) Contradicting DEW, the assumption for neutron devices is that the neutrons radiate in all directions from the detonation point to achieve maximum casualties.
The necessary paradigm shift for neutron nuclear DEW is that energy is ~not~ being used efficiently nor to its maximum destructive potential. In fact, the DEW portion of the design has the purpose to throw away the highly energetic neutrons by aiming them (upwards) where they can do the least collateral damage, both to life forms and to tandem nuclear devices. Nuclear side-effects of heat wave, blast wave, EMP, and radiation are still present, but are reduced to tactical levels. Radiation is present, but mostly non-lingering (dissipating in 48-72 hours). And for what did linger, tight security and nuclear hazmat efforts were in effect to handle.
In the case of 9/11, the devices' detonation sequence in the towers was top-down, but they were DEW devices that directed their neutron energy upwards. This had the added benefit of helping prevent fractricide of nukes lower in the tower.
Opponents have countered at times with: "Directing 'the neutrons upwards' by what mechanism?"
The difference between a fusion device (thermonuclear weapon) and a neutron bomb is the casing. The casing of the former contains the highly energetic neutrons, causing them to bounce around more inside and generating more and more chain-reactions in the core to generate a massive blast & heat wave. The casing of the latter allows the highly energetic neutrons to escape. Because of this, the blast & heat wave are significantly reduce (but still dangerous) and the highly energetic neutrons can penetrate structures and cause cell damage to life forms (and embrittlement in metals).
What results by combining the spherical casing from these two devices such that, say, most of the spherical casing was from a standard fusion device except for only a small cap (or even pin-hole) on top from a neutron casing, which then permits those highly energetic neutrons to escape? ANSWER: a neutron directed energy weapon that targets its energy through the circle of the cap on top. Consider it a shaped-nuclear charge. The neutrons would be directed in a cone shape. As the circle of the neutron cap is made smaller and smaller, the effective angle of the cone gets narrower and narrower.
++++++++ end inserted text
Evidence of 9/11 being a nuclear event include the items below marked with [*].
[*] Radiation
Even from a flawed small set of samples, the measurement of tritium at levels 55 times greater than background levels (that gets re-defined in the report) alone is proof enough that radiation was there. As for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, this was there too, but due to the nature of the device being primarily a neutron one, that particular radiation would have been short-lived (48-72 hours).
For all detractors who are tempted to say "you have no proof of there being radiation," I respond that they also have "no proof of there being ~no~ radiation, or all measurements of such be at or below background levels." The report that performed systematic measurements of such with samples from all over the WTC including the hot-spots has been very much missing in action.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x15
[*] Radiation Mitigation Techniques: The Dirt on That
One of the known radiation mitigation techniques is to spread fresh dirt over the contaminated area; allow it time to absorb alpha, beta, and gamma emissions; collect and dispose of the dirt; repeat.
This page on Dr. Wood's website with pictures of radiation mitigation techniques being implemented.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt3.html
[*] Proper analysis of the Dust
Mr. Jeff Prager reviewed the data from the dozens of dust samples collected by the USGS in his Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB].
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html
These samples were collected more rigorously and systematically than those of Dr. Jones or the Lioy et al report. The USGS samples had Thorium, Lanthanum, and Yttrium, which Lioy et al do not tabulate. As was mentioned, the Lioy study lists in Table 2 various inorganic elements and metals, but does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U). It ignores them and doesn't explain their presence. [Neither USGS data nor the Lioy et al report found the NT flakes that Dr. Jones did.]
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x21
[*] Under-Rubble Hot-Spots and Nano-Thermite
Nano-thermite (NT) has two problems in accounting for the WTC destruction. (1) NT by itself does not have the brisance to account for the observed pulverization and speed of the towers' decimation. So Dr. Jones speculates how something more energetic was in the mix. Thereby he exasperates the second problem, which is (2) the amount of unspent thermitic materials (possibly combined with other energetic chemical materials) leftover in the pile and that would be required to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. High School math & chemistry easily calculate the quantities to be massive, with amounts increasing as a function of the materials' brisance.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x18
[*] High Temperatures during the Destruction
Nuclear fusion peaks at about 800 million Kelvin (~799,999,726 C or ~143,9999,540 F), or only about 261,000 times hotter than RDX, making it a more likely candidate for heating steel beams quickly to a bendable state.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x19
[*] Pulverization of Content and Structure
This was observed and recorded. Therefore, it was either (A) a design goal, (B) an overkill miscalculation, and/or (C) an unavoidable side-effect of powerful nuclear means. It cannot be explained away as a gravity-driven pile-driver that happened at near free-fall speeds, because this defies the laws of physics. So when contemplating what added the energy needed to balance the physics equations, logistics becomes a massive hurdle for chemical-based explosives/incendiaries, particularly when the bomb-sniffing dogs only had a few days' vacation in the days leading up to 9/11.
[*] Decibel levels of the destruction noise
The conclusion from NIST (via Wikipedia) said:
"The investigation cited as evidence the claim that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse [of WTC-7] and that no blast was reported by witnesses, stating that it would have been audible at a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile."
How many survivors and up-close witnesses suffered severe hearing loss on 9/11? To my knowledge: Zero. None of them mention deafening noise or pain as a result of hearing the destruction.
Working backwards from the (minimal) hearing damage inflicted and attenuating distance from the source, we gain an idea of the decimal levels of the source. It does not match the signature characteristics for chemical based explosives/incendiaries (enhanced with nano-thermite.)
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x31
[*] Horseshoe Beams
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5agpUo0ybjLQjeZxg5R4Mc4DGq-ZT8ehaNUprnn2qqWea6zN99Vnju_kwhJIWeSMFWpFIemfGpOQ446wpt4o7T_o2ZnNjN5bV9ksSXlNTsDNDmBZgLWeU639N8A_DMPDfbqTRauE9Oyg/s1600/WTC_steel_abnormally_bent_expert_testimony_about_beam_on_right.jpg
The images above suggest that they were heated end-to-end (as if in a furnace) in order to achieve the smooth arcing of those massive beams. If an incendiary or explosive is attached to a column in a localized fashion, how could it achieve end-to-end effects? So QUICKLY? Could the brisance of RDX blast a beam out of shape into a horseshoe or arch? RDX could probably blast a steel beam to pieces, but to get it to bend at a localized spot without fracture or stress marks is another matter. While fast & hot and designed to cut or tear where they were mounted, such "conventional" mechanisms come up short in explaining these smooth end-to-end bends. The arched beam evidence suggest a massive heat source several orders of magnitude hotter than conventional or exotic chemical mechanisms that would (a) fully heat the metal beams end-to-end (b) in a very short period of time.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x23
[*] Vehicle Damage
The pattern of vehicle fires was not chaotic. The vehicles affected were line-of-sight and some at quite some distance. It didn't affect shaded vehicles or those around corners, or lots of more easily combustible things, like flags, paper, leaves, trees, or people. The pattern to the burns on vehicles is notable, and just as important is the pattern of what combustible things were not torched (e.g., leaves, trees, flags, people).
Consider why cars were seemingly targeted; they contain sheet metal. Depending on magnitude, duration, & distance, electromagnetic energy can induce Eddy currents in metal, heating up the metal, causing its paint to burn, and torching rubber & plastic things affixed, touching, or adjacent to such.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x26
[*] First Responder Ailments
From Jeff Prager:
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-79644cfa.html
1. Leukemia, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma, three rare cancers, have increased dramatically and in an unprecedented number, frequency and rapidity in very young age groups never seen before.
2. All three of these cancers, increasing together in a select population have previously always indicated radiation exposure. The CDC study (K25 Workers), Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima data are all conclusive and in agreement on this issue as well.
3. Increases in these cancers using September 11th as the 'start date,' specifically and most importantly; Leukemia, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma along with increases in esophageal, prostate & thyroid cancers with all of them very rapid increases often in young and otherwise healthy people indicates clearly, without ambiguity and with certainty that further study into a radioactive component of some type and design is critically required.
4. The government, in all its wisdom, decided not to cover cancer in the Zadroga Bill while cancer deaths in First Responders are exploding like the Twin Towers on 911.
5. The EPA, Congress and the military and other governmental and environmental agencies responsible for the disaster cleanup knew from the very beginning that the dust in New York City was highly toxic, caustic and contained 100s of known human poisons. Very few people knew it was radioactive.
7. Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 will show that there are and were bombs tested that were 'salted' such or designed such that over 97% of their radiation was eliminated from the detonation. There was radiation, but not much, not easily measurable without sophisticated equipment, certainly not with a Geiger Counter, and not long-lasting. And it wasn't alpha, beta or gamma radiation; these are the types we usually measure. But enough to kill people, as we're seeing now. It was neutron radiation.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x32
[*] Flawed Reports by Sources in both Government and 9/11 Truth Movement
Ask the average yeoman in the 9/11 Truth Movement (911TM) why 9/11 was supposedly ~not~ a nuclear event, their answer will undoubtedly reference the works of former BYU professor of (nuclear) physics, Dr. Steven Jones, such as: "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers".
A keystone piece of "evidence" leading to Dr. Jones' "no-nukes" conclusions was that only miniscule amounts of tritium were measured. The source he sites is "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams.
What astute researchers will discover is that Dr. Jones' "no-nukes" conclusions are based on incomplete data. "Garbage-in, garbage-out" goes the computer expression. This is not to say that "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" is garbage per se, but it can be thought of as being a wormy apple out of which Dr. Jones tries to make lemonade.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x3
++++
The above is but a copy-and-paste summary of my nuclear article. The links take you to where such topics are discussed.
//
++++++++++
The premise of this discussion is that 9/11 was a nuclear event that involved per WTC tower multiple neutron DEW devices. Everything about 9/11 including the lock-stepping of those in the on-going cover-up. Think about it: wiffs of nuclear-anything on 9/11 vastly reduces the list of possible suspects and would have figurative nuclear fall-out in all aspects and levels of what constitutes the status quo in the USA. We'd vote our government out, and maybe the USA into separate regions. But I digress.
Allow me to give my discussion opponents an advantage by saying the totality (so far) of my nuclear argument is contained in my article, "Nuclear 2001-09-11" at:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html
But for those too lazy to follow the link, I'll use this Facebook posting to summarize it. The first order of business is to describe the nuclear devices properly. I call them "neutron nuclear DEW", whereby some of the arguments and much of the evidence of Dr. Judy Wood apply. A paradigm shift is required to understand it.
++++++++ begin inserted text
From decades of PR and hype of nuclear weapons, the common paradigm suggests that such always aim for high yields, lots of destruction, and lots of casualties. When "DEW" (directed energy weapon) is appended to the description, the assumption is that energy is being aimed at a target to achieve destruction and casualties. (Laser beams and active denial systems do precisely this.) Contradicting DEW, the assumption for neutron devices is that the neutrons radiate in all directions from the detonation point to achieve maximum casualties.
The necessary paradigm shift for neutron nuclear DEW is that energy is ~not~ being used efficiently nor to its maximum destructive potential. In fact, the DEW portion of the design has the purpose to throw away the highly energetic neutrons by aiming them (upwards) where they can do the least collateral damage, both to life forms and to tandem nuclear devices. Nuclear side-effects of heat wave, blast wave, EMP, and radiation are still present, but are reduced to tactical levels. Radiation is present, but mostly non-lingering (dissipating in 48-72 hours). And for what did linger, tight security and nuclear hazmat efforts were in effect to handle.
In the case of 9/11, the devices' detonation sequence in the towers was top-down, but they were DEW devices that directed their neutron energy upwards. This had the added benefit of helping prevent fractricide of nukes lower in the tower.
Opponents have countered at times with: "Directing 'the neutrons upwards' by what mechanism?"
The difference between a fusion device (thermonuclear weapon) and a neutron bomb is the casing. The casing of the former contains the highly energetic neutrons, causing them to bounce around more inside and generating more and more chain-reactions in the core to generate a massive blast & heat wave. The casing of the latter allows the highly energetic neutrons to escape. Because of this, the blast & heat wave are significantly reduce (but still dangerous) and the highly energetic neutrons can penetrate structures and cause cell damage to life forms (and embrittlement in metals).
What results by combining the spherical casing from these two devices such that, say, most of the spherical casing was from a standard fusion device except for only a small cap (or even pin-hole) on top from a neutron casing, which then permits those highly energetic neutrons to escape? ANSWER: a neutron directed energy weapon that targets its energy through the circle of the cap on top. Consider it a shaped-nuclear charge. The neutrons would be directed in a cone shape. As the circle of the neutron cap is made smaller and smaller, the effective angle of the cone gets narrower and narrower.
++++++++ end inserted text
Evidence of 9/11 being a nuclear event include the items below marked with [*].
[*] Radiation
Even from a flawed small set of samples, the measurement of tritium at levels 55 times greater than background levels (that gets re-defined in the report) alone is proof enough that radiation was there. As for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, this was there too, but due to the nature of the device being primarily a neutron one, that particular radiation would have been short-lived (48-72 hours).
For all detractors who are tempted to say "you have no proof of there being radiation," I respond that they also have "no proof of there being ~no~ radiation, or all measurements of such be at or below background levels." The report that performed systematic measurements of such with samples from all over the WTC including the hot-spots has been very much missing in action.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x15
[*] Radiation Mitigation Techniques: The Dirt on That
One of the known radiation mitigation techniques is to spread fresh dirt over the contaminated area; allow it time to absorb alpha, beta, and gamma emissions; collect and dispose of the dirt; repeat.
This page on Dr. Wood's website with pictures of radiation mitigation techniques being implemented.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt3.html
[*] Proper analysis of the Dust
Mr. Jeff Prager reviewed the data from the dozens of dust samples collected by the USGS in his Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB].
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html
These samples were collected more rigorously and systematically than those of Dr. Jones or the Lioy et al report. The USGS samples had Thorium, Lanthanum, and Yttrium, which Lioy et al do not tabulate. As was mentioned, the Lioy study lists in Table 2 various inorganic elements and metals, but does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U). It ignores them and doesn't explain their presence. [Neither USGS data nor the Lioy et al report found the NT flakes that Dr. Jones did.]
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x21
[*] Under-Rubble Hot-Spots and Nano-Thermite
Nano-thermite (NT) has two problems in accounting for the WTC destruction. (1) NT by itself does not have the brisance to account for the observed pulverization and speed of the towers' decimation. So Dr. Jones speculates how something more energetic was in the mix. Thereby he exasperates the second problem, which is (2) the amount of unspent thermitic materials (possibly combined with other energetic chemical materials) leftover in the pile and that would be required to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. High School math & chemistry easily calculate the quantities to be massive, with amounts increasing as a function of the materials' brisance.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x18
[*] High Temperatures during the Destruction
Nuclear fusion peaks at about 800 million Kelvin (~799,999,726 C or ~143,9999,540 F), or only about 261,000 times hotter than RDX, making it a more likely candidate for heating steel beams quickly to a bendable state.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x19
[*] Pulverization of Content and Structure
This was observed and recorded. Therefore, it was either (A) a design goal, (B) an overkill miscalculation, and/or (C) an unavoidable side-effect of powerful nuclear means. It cannot be explained away as a gravity-driven pile-driver that happened at near free-fall speeds, because this defies the laws of physics. So when contemplating what added the energy needed to balance the physics equations, logistics becomes a massive hurdle for chemical-based explosives/incendiaries, particularly when the bomb-sniffing dogs only had a few days' vacation in the days leading up to 9/11.
[*] Decibel levels of the destruction noise
The conclusion from NIST (via Wikipedia) said:
"The investigation cited as evidence the claim that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse [of WTC-7] and that no blast was reported by witnesses, stating that it would have been audible at a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile."
How many survivors and up-close witnesses suffered severe hearing loss on 9/11? To my knowledge: Zero. None of them mention deafening noise or pain as a result of hearing the destruction.
Working backwards from the (minimal) hearing damage inflicted and attenuating distance from the source, we gain an idea of the decimal levels of the source. It does not match the signature characteristics for chemical based explosives/incendiaries (enhanced with nano-thermite.)
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x31
[*] Horseshoe Beams
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5agpUo0ybjLQjeZxg5R4Mc4DGq-ZT8ehaNUprnn2qqWea6zN99Vnju_kwhJIWeSMFWpFIemfGpOQ446wpt4o7T_o2ZnNjN5bV9ksSXlNTsDNDmBZgLWeU639N8A_DMPDfbqTRauE9Oyg/s1600/WTC_steel_abnormally_bent_expert_testimony_about_beam_on_right.jpg
The images above suggest that they were heated end-to-end (as if in a furnace) in order to achieve the smooth arcing of those massive beams. If an incendiary or explosive is attached to a column in a localized fashion, how could it achieve end-to-end effects? So QUICKLY? Could the brisance of RDX blast a beam out of shape into a horseshoe or arch? RDX could probably blast a steel beam to pieces, but to get it to bend at a localized spot without fracture or stress marks is another matter. While fast & hot and designed to cut or tear where they were mounted, such "conventional" mechanisms come up short in explaining these smooth end-to-end bends. The arched beam evidence suggest a massive heat source several orders of magnitude hotter than conventional or exotic chemical mechanisms that would (a) fully heat the metal beams end-to-end (b) in a very short period of time.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x23
[*] Vehicle Damage
The pattern of vehicle fires was not chaotic. The vehicles affected were line-of-sight and some at quite some distance. It didn't affect shaded vehicles or those around corners, or lots of more easily combustible things, like flags, paper, leaves, trees, or people. The pattern to the burns on vehicles is notable, and just as important is the pattern of what combustible things were not torched (e.g., leaves, trees, flags, people).
Consider why cars were seemingly targeted; they contain sheet metal. Depending on magnitude, duration, & distance, electromagnetic energy can induce Eddy currents in metal, heating up the metal, causing its paint to burn, and torching rubber & plastic things affixed, touching, or adjacent to such.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x26
[*] First Responder Ailments
From Jeff Prager:
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-79644cfa.html
1. Leukemia, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma, three rare cancers, have increased dramatically and in an unprecedented number, frequency and rapidity in very young age groups never seen before.
2. All three of these cancers, increasing together in a select population have previously always indicated radiation exposure. The CDC study (K25 Workers), Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima data are all conclusive and in agreement on this issue as well.
3. Increases in these cancers using September 11th as the 'start date,' specifically and most importantly; Leukemia, non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma along with increases in esophageal, prostate & thyroid cancers with all of them very rapid increases often in young and otherwise healthy people indicates clearly, without ambiguity and with certainty that further study into a radioactive component of some type and design is critically required.
4. The government, in all its wisdom, decided not to cover cancer in the Zadroga Bill while cancer deaths in First Responders are exploding like the Twin Towers on 911.
5. The EPA, Congress and the military and other governmental and environmental agencies responsible for the disaster cleanup knew from the very beginning that the dust in New York City was highly toxic, caustic and contained 100s of known human poisons. Very few people knew it was radioactive.
7. Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 will show that there are and were bombs tested that were 'salted' such or designed such that over 97% of their radiation was eliminated from the detonation. There was radiation, but not much, not easily measurable without sophisticated equipment, certainly not with a Geiger Counter, and not long-lasting. And it wasn't alpha, beta or gamma radiation; these are the types we usually measure. But enough to kill people, as we're seeing now. It was neutron radiation.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x32
[*] Flawed Reports by Sources in both Government and 9/11 Truth Movement
Ask the average yeoman in the 9/11 Truth Movement (911TM) why 9/11 was supposedly ~not~ a nuclear event, their answer will undoubtedly reference the works of former BYU professor of (nuclear) physics, Dr. Steven Jones, such as: "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers".
A keystone piece of "evidence" leading to Dr. Jones' "no-nukes" conclusions was that only miniscule amounts of tritium were measured. The source he sites is "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" by T.M. Semkow, R.S. Hafner, P.P Parekh, G.J. Wozniak, D.K. Haines, L. Husain, R.L. Rabun, P.G. Williams.
What astute researchers will discover is that Dr. Jones' "no-nukes" conclusions are based on incomplete data. "Garbage-in, garbage-out" goes the computer expression. This is not to say that "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" is garbage per se, but it can be thought of as being a wormy apple out of which Dr. Jones tries to make lemonade.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html#x3
++++
The above is but a copy-and-paste summary of my nuclear article. The links take you to where such topics are discussed.
//
- Frank Agamemnon and 3 others like this.
- 37 of 157
Maxwell Bridges Mr. Morales writes:
"And repeated posts to a thread is not per se spamming."...See More- Maxwell Bridges Dear Ms. Keoki George,
An honorific applied to your name is a sign of respect and is only insulting if the gender is wrong. I was led to believe that you are a female. If this is incorrect, I apologize and will change. Likewise, if you have a doctor's...See More 
Matthew Barancho - Not sure wtf a "steel doobie" is, but incendiaries have been known to melt steel. Are we referring to columns with melted or red-hot tips? I looked at one of your earlier-referenced photos... still had no idea what you were referring to.
- Under...See More
Ron Morales Steel doobies. Some steel ejected laterally from the massive gravitational energy involved which could explain the horizontal force.
Mystery solved.- Maxwell Bridges Part 1/4. Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "Since there’s absolutely no reason to accept Maxwell as an expert on anything relevant, any claims he makes without evidence can be summarily dismissed. Maxwell’s unsubstantiated, amateur speculation is evidence of abs...See More
- Maxwell Bridges Part 2/4. I wrote: "And after all of this time, has Mr. Morales addressed the "steel doobies"? Nope. First brought to his attention on January 28, 2013. Then again on January 30, 2013 (for Keoki's and your benefit.)"
Mr. Morales responds: "What 'steel...See More - Maxwell Bridges Part 3/4. I wrote: "The anomaly to be considered was the ~DURATION~ of under-rubble fires."
Mr. Morales offered the hypnotic suggestion: "Already addressed many times."...See More - Maxwell Bridges Part 4/4. Worse for Mr. Morales, I wrote: "Contrary to Mr. Morales' hypnotic suggestion, the above calculations remain relevant. They just need to be tweaked appropriately for enclosed fires. What burn rate does Mr. Morales suggest be used?"
Mr. Moral...See More - Ron Morales "Mr. Morales' grasp of high school algebra and physics is demonstrated to be so weak "
Maxwell, my patience is getting thin. Back off the personal. - Ron Morales "Based on the deceit displayed above"
Are you angling to get booted Maxwell so you don't have to face my proving you wrong over and over again? - Ron Morales "Mr. Morales incoherent response that further demonstrates no understand of basic physics"
More personal attacks, albeit in a grammatically tortured way. - Ron Morales "Mr. Morales weasels"
Weasels Maxwell Bridges? Well, clearly you are attempting suicide by mod to avoid having your nonsense refuted over and over again. I'm not bothering with any more warnings. Insult me or anyone else again and you're out. If you can't defend your beliefs without engaging in personal attacks, then that speaks volumes regarding the vacuousness of your theories. - Ron Morales "What I discovered too late from going over his poor grasp of high school physics, was that Mr. Morales is a bit math/science-challenged. "
More personal attacks. - Ron Morales "I'll explain the math as simply as I can for Mr. Morales, who must have failed the math portion of the military's ASVAB."
More personal attacks. - Ron Morales "I most certainly know where I stand: |<-this_far->| from being banned. "
Ah. Maxwell shows his hand. He IS vying to get himself banned. Yet another truther trying to get himself banned so he won't have to face having his demonstrably false nonsense exposed any more. - Ron Morales "despite the masterful attempts by Ms. Keoki George, Ms. Elizabeth Tague, and Mr. Ron Morales in crafting such faulty, idiotic comments"
Oooh, he really is desperate to get himself booted, isn't he? I guess his patience for watching his amateurish absurdities exposed has run out. 
Elizabeth Tague Indeed, every post is basically a thinly veiled attempt to garnish hits for his site.
Boot him Ron, he has gone way past skirting the rules . ,- Matthew Barancho I think when 100% of the group (truthers and swallowers alike) agree that his 'theory' is completely without merit and consistent only of word salads, it's about time to let him go. Let him find a group where people will be fascinated by someone spending hours typing out sheer nonsense. He has been refuted over and over again, so much that it's not worth getting into any further. Goodbye 'Maxwell'.
- Maxwell Bridges Twenty (20) SPAMMING comments in a row from Mr. Morales, Ms. George, and Ms. Tague that did not address a single point in my four part response. Good teamwork!!!
For Ms. George's benefit, that particular team effort is "flooding" and "spamming" by ju...See More
Part 2 Nukes are framed improperly as Dimitri Khelezov does. Big massive things
Mr. Ganduu says that the WTC destruction evidence doesn't agree with nukes. Yes and no. On the yes side (to nukes not agreeing with evidence), when nukes are framed improperly as Dimitri Khelezov does. Big massive things. His proposal only accounts for them in the basement, when clearly the pulverization was top-down.
Offhand I can recall only two nuggets of truth that I'd be half inclined to rescue from that disinfo agent's body of work.
(1) Because NYC is constantly renewing itself, they got wise and started requiring demolition plans to go along with building plans, particularly when the structures were going to be much larger in scale. Mr. Khelezov says that a document was stolen by Russian agents or leaked to the same that was essentially the demolition plan for the towers submitted with the building plans, and it included or left the door open for nuclear devices.
(2) There are some massive, "glassy" crators below places like the WTC-4. Mr. Khelezov says that only a nuke has something to turn sand to glass, etc. On the flip side, the government apologists say that the formation was there for centuries and was just deep enough that no one knew it was there at the time of construction.
Be that as it may, "no, the evidence does indeed support nuclear methods."
- The energy of the pulverization.
- The low decibel levels in the destruction (e.g., couldn't be conventional explosives/incendiaries).
- The duration and heat of under-rubble fires.
- The evidence of high heat in the demolition process (as exhibited by wall assemblies rolled into "steel doobies" and tiny iron sphere permeating the dust. The latter was an anomalous feature documented in the RJ Lee group's report on the Banker's Trust building.)
- The tritium measurements. (The reports succeed in the limited scopes they were given, but their results cannot be used to explain the whole tritium story. Measurements were delayed and at far flung drainage points. No samples at the hot-spots. Measurements were stopped when what they were measuring was well below EPA thresholds on what is considered a health risk. As part of this, trace levels were re-defined 55 times greater than before.)
- The radiation reports. MISSING IN ACTION. Show me the report that measured systematically, thoroughly, and promptly (24-48 hours) for alpha, beta, and gamma radiation and decisively shows them all at or around trace background levels. Doesn't exist. What does exist are reports that used a few suspect samples EAST of the WTC that were taken many days to weeks after 9/11. Given that "trace/background level" was redefined in the tritium report, when this report on radioactive nucleotides (sp) was talking about trace levels, it gave neither what was measured nor what trace levels were.
- The USGS dust samples show traces of Uranium and other elements consistent with nuclear mechanisms. The kicker are correlations between elements going from sample to sample indicating being part of the destructive process.
- The radiation reduction hazmat procedures at the WTC. Tight security. No errant cameras or Geiger counters allows. Hell, they even tried to outlaw Geiger counters in NYC.
Mr. Joy wrote: "Now its not mini nukes in the building, its demolition nukes laid when the buildings were built, NO, change that, bored into the bedrock, NO strike that, neutron bombs, I mean, correction lots of neutron bombs."
FTR, the involvement of devices that would be varients of neutron bombs didn't come into play until about a year ago in parallel efforts (my work and that of a crew Dr. Fetzer brought together for a conference and VT articles).
It doesn't surprise me that nuke theories ran the spectrum -- on purpose -- as limited hang-outs to get nukes taken off of the table. Every single one of them (until about a year ago) including the works of the Anonymous Physicists, BYU Nuclear Physicists Dr. Steven Jones, and Dr. Judy Wood OMITTED ANY REFERENCE TO ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE TO A NEUTRON BOMB. That is pretty glaring.
Mr. Joy wrote: "... SO powerful they can make WTC1 and 2 and 7 into dust yet at the same time produce no significant seismic signature, no EMP no heat no mushroom cloud, and - so clever- just restrict their effects to the WTC postcode."
The seismic signatures are there, but the configuration of the neutron devices aimed it towards tactical blast and heat waves.
I never said there was no EMP. Nope, Dr. Wood actually documents it very well in her collection of images of damaged vehicles. The things to note about EMP is that this side-effect can be tweaked somewhat in the design (that also reduced blast/heat side-effects) and more importantly in its placement. EMP is always reduced when detonated from within.
No mushroom cloud? I disagree. The mushroom cloud was distorted first by the smoke and fires already billowing out of the towers prior to detonations. Secondly, devices were detonated with structure above that would have dampened and distorted such cloud formation.
Certainly, my "neutron nuclear DEW" devices have issues. For example (because it is probably classified), I don't really have proof that the highly energetic neutrons could be expelled in a targeted fashion DEW-like to get them out of the way, as I describe. But I do know from the inventor of the neutron device itself that some direction of neutrons is possible; and we know from the proposals that made it into the public sphere from Star Wars that directing energy from nuclear weapons (e.g., Excalibur) was not idle speculation (although probably not completely accurate, either, and more along the lines of wording to scare the Ruskies in the Cold War days.)
Omissions can be major clues to a cover-up agenda. Nothing produced by the government clearly proves that there was no evidence of nuclear devices. What did come out, was very focused and scope-limited. The 9/11 TM wasn't bound to those scope-limits, yet the PhD's all swallowed those reports and spun them further... Yet still no mention of neutron-style devices. Not by Dr. Jones, not by Dr. Judy, and not even by the Anonymous Physicist.
// - Maxwell Bridges Ms. George, address the substance of my four part posting that your assistance is spamming and flooding has now scrolled it way up. Or STFU. This is a debate forum. Duh!
I bet you didn't even read my four part comment. And if you did, how did you like...See More - Maxwell Bridges If you won't address how NIST documents the towers falling at near gravitational acceleration, then please block me and get the hell off of this thread, because otherwise your comments are just SPAM in every sense of the word, making you a SPAMMER. //
- Ron Morales None of what Maxwell posted of mine was a personal attack. Given his bald faced declarations of presumed fact with nothing to support his claims other than that he's declaring them true, he's presenting himself as an authority on such matters, thus opening the door for me to challenge his personal authority by noting that he's just an amateur who doesn't know what he's talking about.
- Ron Morales I'll respond to Maxwell's four recent posts addressing some (but obviously not all) of my refutations of his nonsense in the thread in which the discussion began. i see no reason to migrate the discussion to Maxwell's thread, unless Maxwell is trying to create a situation where he can then delete analysis that once again rebuts his nonsense.
- Ron Morales "I substantiated why I called various passages from Mr. Morales "deceit""
"To prove that he is inconsistent and hypocritical"...See More - Ron Morales Yet another intellectually incompetent coward who tries to get himself booted so as to avoid being further embarrassed by having his delusions debunked by reality.
